Barsobia v. Cuenco, 113 SCRA 547

193. Barsobia v.
Cuenco Had this been a suit between Epifania and Ong King Po, she could have been declared
G.R. No. L-33048 entitled to the litigated land on the basis, as claimed, of the ruling in Philippine Banking
DATE: 16 April 1982 Corporation v. Lui She, 8 reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
Topic: Unenforceable Contracts ". . . For another thing, and this is not only cogent but also important. Article 1416 of the Civil
Petitioner: Epifania Sarsosa Vda. De Barsobia and Pacita W. Vallar Code provides as an exception to the rule on pari delicto that when the agreement is not
Respondent: Victoriano T. Cuenco illegal per se but is merely prohibited, and the prohibition by the law is designed for the
Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J. protection of the plaintiff, he may, if public policy is thereby enhanced, recover what he has
sold or delivered . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
FACTS: A parcel of coconut land was sold in 1936 by its Filipino owner, petitioner Barsobia, to
Ong King Po, a Chinese, and by the latter to respondent Cuenco, a naturalized Filipino, who But the factual set-up has changed. The litigated property is now in the hands of a
took immediate possession of the land and harvested the fruits therefrom. naturalized Filipino. It is no longer owned by a disqualified vendee. Respondent, as a
naturalized citizen, was constitutionally qualified to own the subject property. There would
Petitioner Barsobia later unilaterally repudiated the sale in favor of Ong and resold the land be no more public policy to be served in allowing petitioner Epifania to recover the land as it
in 1962 to petitioner Vallar, a Filipino. On December 27, 1966, respondent instituted an is already in the hands of a qualified person. Applying by analogy the ruling of this Court in
action for recovery of possession and ownership against the petitioners. Vasquez v. Giap and Li Seng Giap & Sons: 9
Petitioners, in their answer, averred that the sale made in favor of Ong was in existent and ". . . if the ban on aliens from acquiring not only agricultural but also urban lands, as
that the deed of sale in his favor was merely an evidence of indebtedness. construed by this Court in the Krivenko case, is to preserve the nation’s lands for future
generations of Filipinos, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by making
The Trial Court dismissed the complaint and declared petitioner Vallar the lawful owner of lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by
the land. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and declared respondent naturalization."cralaw virtua1aw library
Cuenco as the absolute owner. Hence, the present petition.
While, strictly speaking, Ong King Po, private respondent’s vendor, had no rights of
ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of the land to a Chinese was void ab initio and the vendor is ownership to transmit, it is likewise inescapable that petitioner Epifania had slept on her
barred from asserting her claim on the land rights for 26 years from 1936 to 1962. By her long inaction or inexcusable neglect, she should
be held barred from asserting her claim to the litigated property (Sotto v. Teves, 86 SCRA 157
RULING: Although the sale of the land to a Chinese was void ab initio and the vendee had no [1978]).
rights of ownership to transmit, the vendor is barred from asserting her claim on the land
because she is guilty of laches and the disputed land is already in the hands of a qualified "Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained
person. Hence, respondent should be declared the rightful owner of the property in question. length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done
earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a
As the facts stand, a parcel of coconut land was sold by its Filipino owner, petitioner Epifania, presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert
to a Chinese, Ong King Po, and by the latter to a naturalized Filipino, respondent herein. In it. (Tijam, Et. Al. v. Sibonghanoy, Et Al., No. L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29, 35)." (cited in
the meantime, the Filipino owner had unilaterally repudiated the sale she had made to the Sotto v. Teves, 86 SCRA [1978]).
Chinese and had resold the property to another Filipino. The basic issue is: Who is the rightful
owner of the property? Respondent, therefore, must be declared to be the rightful owner of the property.
There should be no question that the sale of the land in question in 1936 by Epifania to Ong WHEREFORE, except for that portion holding petitioner, Pacita W. Vallar, also liable for
King Po was inexistent and void from the beginning (Art. 1409 [7], Civil Code) 6 because it damages of P10,000.00, the appealed judgment is hereby affirmed.
was a contract executed against the mandatory provision of the 1935 Constitution, which is
an expression of public policy to conserve lands for the Filipinos. Said provision
reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or

assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations, qualified to acquire or hold
lands of the public domain." 7

Barsobia v. Cuenco, 113 SCRA 547

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barsobia v. Cuenco, 113 SCRA 547

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

193. Barsobia v.

"Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or

You might also like